« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

EDITOR OF REDSTATE

A Real Tea Party Worthy Amendment to the Constitution

By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  March 4th, 2010 at 10:47 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Some of you may have already seen their op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, but three conservatives in the House, Congressmen Jeb Hensarling (TX), Mike Pence (IN), and John Campbell (CA) introduced a constitutional amendment today to control spending by limiting it to one-fifth of the economy. The Spending Limit Amendment would keep spending as a percentage of GDP at the historical average since World War II, as it is set to more than double in the years ahead. There is an in-depth look here. (big PDF file)

The idea is to force a debate on the size and scope of the federal government now and gain a political will for a national budget of sorts. As they explained on C-SPAN yesterday morning, after years of battling against spending against both Republicans and Democrats, and offering specific proposals and budgets, they believe it is important to give the public a goal and to define what is fiscally sustainable, and what is not, and then get political buy-in. If Republicans manage to win back control of Congress, a proposal like this will give us a yardstick by which to keep their budgets accountable and ensure that they don’t sell us down the river again.

For those of us who are also fans of the Balanced Budget Amendment, here is their logic in pursuing one that focuses only on spending. Spending is the real problem for those of us who believe in limited government—not taxes—and focusing on a Balanced Budget Amendment too often allows liberals to participate in the discussion without being serious about controlling spending. Now good conservatives have offered a Balanced Budget Amendment (and specifically ensure in the text of their proposal that taxes couldn’t be raised)—and I’ll continue to support those proposals as well—but I think the logic of focusing the electorate on spending is very sound because it is more clear cut.

Many in the political and policy establishment will scoff at this proposal, but the Spending Limit Amendment is a new, bold initiative that deserves the support of every member who calls themselves a conservative. Here is a both a one page and an extensive description of the proposal that is well worth a read. Learn about it, and then call your member and ask them to sign on to the plan.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • http://travismonitor.blogspot.com Freedoms Truth

    This is a brilliant idea, and I know so because I advocated it previously. A TABOR-like spending limitation rule could work like PAYGO does now, as a restriction on overall spending.
    Setting a long-term target of 15% is a ‘stake in the ground’ for smaller Government overall.

    BTW, this can be used to achieve the ‘balanced budget’ goal with just a simple addition: Require a super-majority to raise the debt ceiling, and a super-majority to forgo PAYGO rules.

    http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2009/05/transformational-agenda-for-right.html

    “15% Solution: A goal of having a Federal Govt take 15% of GDP, and until that time have the Federal Govt go on a ‘diet’ where it grows no faster than inflation plus population. (The 15% solution)”

    http://travismonitor.blogspot.com/2008/03/fundamental-tax-reform-15-solution.html

    “1) The Federal Government Costs too much and the burden of Government should be limited.
    We can implement this by limiting Government Spending to 15% of GDP as long-term goal. Since WWII, the Federal Government burden has been between 18% and 23% of GDP. It has not shrunk even as Defense spending fell in the post-Cold War era. There is a simple way to cap the burden of Government spending: keep spending, including entitlements, at inflation rate plus population growth. Limit Government spending to that rate, and the Federal Government will shrink relative to the economy, until we reach 15% of GDP as long-term goal.

    Without a long-term overarching goal of lessened burden of Government, tax reform is doomed to be ineffective, as the cost of Government pushes tax rates up.”

  • mikerazar

    you intend to keep entitlements plus interest plus military below 20% of an ambiguous moving target like GDP, I don’t think this proposal is amendment-worthy. Drastic cuts in entitlements require across the board cuts of entitlements are impossible in an aging democracy. Let’s not create another amendment just to be ignored.

  • 10ksnooker

    With a cap, that makes the most sense.

    How about at the same time, we give the Senate back to the State Governments and stopped the unfunded mandates at the same time. What we have now is a bunch of Senators who think they have ‘seats for life’ …

    One of the first thing the progressives did is destroy the States seat at the federal table.

  • AndrewHyman

    I looked through this huge pdf file, and found no explanation of why the same goals cannot be attained without a constitutional amendment.

    This could all be achieved just as easily — in fact much more easily — via an amendment to the Senate Rules, for example.

    I despise most proposed constitutional amendments, because they ignore easier ways of solving the same problem that the amendment would solve. Constitutional amendments are often proposed more for dramatic effect than to actually accomplish anything. When the amendment fails, then everyone throws up their hands and noes absolutely NOTHING. And that is what will happen when this one fails.

    To take another example, there were a bunch of pro-life amendments proposed to the US Constitution. But, it would have been much easier for Congress to simply pass a statute saying that any exercise of judicial review under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment must by by a unanimous vote of the U.S. Supreme Court.

    99.9999% of proposed constitutional amendments richly deserve to be ignored, IMHO.

  • http://www.criterionchemical.com Chemical Sam

    Tax at one fifth until our national debt is paid back, (two presidental terms max, if we stop Obama in 2010) keep it there until we are in a position to shrug off any nationwide disaster or a major war. Then park it at one seventh, tied to the GDP forever, taxing at one fifth, perhaps one forth, during declared wartime (a real and equitable obstacle for fending off unpopular action. Tying all social programs to GDP wouldn’t be a bad idea either. Those, too should err just on the side of being a money maker, so that times of particular economic stress a reserve might be tapped.

    All that can go right into the amendment, the disparate rates expire when the country has achieved its monetary restoration. Congress won’t like it, but, who asked them?

    If the people want more government spending, they’ll just have to find ways to catalyze commerce, rather than discourage, squelch, or stunt, or usurp it, like what the Obama administration is doing in a brazen, dispicable way now.

    Yeah, I know, I see the historical graph. 20% is too much. Heck, 14.3% is too much as far as I’m concerned, but I’m not unreasonable.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Seriously, that isn’t a solution at all. At the first opportunity the spenders would just change the Senate rules again. A Constitutional Amendment would be much more binding and permanent that just a rule change in the Senate.

  • AndrewHyman

    It takes a 2/3 vote of the US Senate to change their standing rules.

  • Aaron Gardner

    What makes you think that we could get enough votes to change the rule but the big spenders couldn’t get enough to change it back?

    A Constitutional Amendment is much more difficult to repeal or change than Senate rule.

  • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

    Or would it force cuts in Medicare? Because if either of those come into play it will be a tough sell politically.

  • AndrewHyman

    Yes, a Constitutional Amendment is much more difficult to repeal or change than a Senate rule. But, it’s also much more difficult to enact.

    Sure, if 2/3 vote to change the rules, then there could subsequently be a vast change so that 2/3 undo the rule change. But the same thing can happen to constitutional amendments. Consider prohibition of alcohol.

    It just seems silly to me to attempt something that’s virtually impossible, before trying more possible approaches.

  • AndrewHyman

    In my first comment, regarding my first comment, I should have said that “any exercise of judicial review under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment REGARDING ABORTION must by by a unanimous vote of the U.S. Supreme Court.”

  • Aaron Gardner

    I mean in the course of over 200 years only one amendment has been repealed.

    Now, how many Senate rule changes have we had in that same time?

    I understand what you are saying about trying the easier of the two paths, but as a tactic of negotiation that is a losing philosophy. You never come to the table with only what you would find minimally acceptable. Instead you shoot for the stars and if you get pulled back down you have a better opportunity to land where you wanted to be in the first place.

    This is why most Republicans lose in bipartisan negotiations. Democrats come to the table and offer Communism even though they will accept something well below, Republicans come to the table with exactly what they want and then lose half of what they want while giving the Dems more incremental steps towards totalitarian rule.

  • Achance

    Republicans have already lost a negotiation with themselves to come up with something they think the Democrats will buy. Then they get caught up in all that compromise and bipartisan crap and wind up adding all sorts of Democrat stuff to what they brought to the table.

    You CAN come to the table with exactly what you want, but then you have to have guts enough to stick to it and almost nobody with the kind of personality that can get you elected in any but the Bluest districts has the guts to stick to the hard position.

  • AndrewHyman

    I honestly don’t know how many times 2/3 of the Senate has voted to repeal a rule that 2/3 of the Senate previously adopted. I suspect that it’s been very rare.

    Also, I don’t see why the Democrats would feel to compromise about the Hensarling-Pence-Campbell amendment if there’s a snowball’s chance in hell that it will be ratified. They would be more likely to compromise about something that the GOP can actually achieve.

  • Aaron Gardner

    And since we don’t have the men with guts that’s why we have to come to the table with much more than we want. ;)

  • Aaron Gardner

    As we just saw with Harry Reid’s use of UC wrt Unemployment benefits. Granted, it would be something if UC subverted such a rule, but that doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t happen.

  • nessa

    As I see it, its a win/win. If it passes, and I’ll give that the same odds as a snowball in hell, we have a baseline to work from on future cuts. Being forced to contain spending will force congress to act on much needed cuts, entitlements, medicare, medicaid, social security, the really hard ones will have to be dealt with. I would expect the gov’t to even reduce its own size before it has to look seriously at cutting entitlements.

    If, and this is the most likely course of action, we can popularize the amendment and force it to come to a vote before the elections, with the serious focus on fiscal responsibility among Americans today, voting against this will be the end of a congress critters career.

  • hickorystick

    limit social carnage from Alcohol. Tea-Party amendment is meant to limit financial carnage from spending-drunk politicians who have lost their moral center. Might even get passed if the Pols think it will make the Tea-Party go away.

  • Flagstaff

    Its Pros are significant, however.

    • As an amendment, it would be hard to ignore.
    • It addresses the true problem–spending.
    • It can be supported with reasonable arguments.

    I question if 20% might not be too high. Looks like we need to be a bit lower than that to close the deficit gap, judging from 1995 to 2008. Say one-sixth instead of one-fifth. What percentage of current GDP is the 2007 budget? Let’s go back to that one.

    A lower rate would almost certainly result in a faster-growing GDP, which would imply that what we really need to do is to postpone our gratification just a bit, until we get the tax receipts to do what we want, instead of borrowing from our grandchildren to have it NOW. But spending at the level of one-sixth GDP would almost certainly guarantee prosperity.

    Although I used to agree with the concept of a Balanced Budget Amendment, I recognize now that it is too easily fudged. Democrats would simply say, “We need to raise the top Income Tax rate to 90% to balance the budget.”

  • Flagstaff

    Lower cost of government.
    Fewer bureaucrats to intrude into our lives.
    More people working in the private sector and paying real taxes.

    I love it.

  • Common_Cents

    We cannot just send well intentioned people to DC hoping they will make good changes. The system eats most of them up and spits them out as a DC drones drinkin the koolaid. The system needs to be improved to put out a better product for America.

    Heck, as much as many of them are lying crooks, I’d even throw in a heft bonus for CONgress to achieve reasonable spending level benchmarks. Kind of like an Xprize bonus. Even if it was a million bucks for each CONgress critter at least they’d be focused on smaller government to get their bonus instead of spending like shopaholics with an unlimited credit card in exchange for votes and campaign money.

  • jaydickb

    they don’t have an “escape hatch” and are thus too inflexible to deal with real emergencies. At a minimum there would need to be a provision where the requirement could be overridden with a real supermajority (2/3 of each congressional house?).

  • Wes_W

    Your proposal is a great a idea. The problem with your idea is it is to simple, it makes to much sense, and you dont have 2000 + pages of lawyer talk to back it up. Your idea will never fly in todays congress.

  • shadowtax

    I have often argued that a Balanced Budget does not limit spending, but only necessitates greater taxation to keep the budget balanced. And then there’s the business of non-budgetary items…emergencies…etc.

    I have often thought about instituting a flat tax of say 17%, perhaps with predesignated appropriation, 5% to defense, 1% federal law enforcement, etc…..with 2% directed towards deficit elimination, which sunsets. Anyhow, that’s my pipe dream.

    Appropriation power is the root of much corruption in Washington. With today’s technology, it is less and less necessary for the people to delegate spending authority to Washington.

  • momoxie

    this seems like a very, very difficuly proposition.

  • Aaron Gardner

    Via the pdf that Erick linked above…

    The limit could only be waived if a declaration of war was in effect or by a two-thirds vote of Congress.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    You mean like the rule that prohibits the use of reconciliation to create a government medical care plan for the public?

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    Surpluses are for the birds.

  • Aaron Gardner
  • aesthete

    to pay off some (but not all) of our accumulated debt.

  • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

    As far as I’m concerned we need to end debt growth, roll it over as needed, and let inflation do the rest going forward.

  • cwilson

    but if you believe that’s all it would take for the spenders to revert it, then you haven’t been paying attention this past week.

    That is all.

  • AndrewHyman

    Neil, according to my understanding, the health care monstrosity would be created via plain old legislation, without reconciliation. Only after the legislation is passed and signed would reconciliation be used to modify it. Whether such modification complies with the “Byrd Rule” would be up to the Senate to decide, and honestly there are some advantages to having the Senate decide that question than having five out of nine unaccountable Supreme Court justices decide it.

  • conservos

    If you’re a delegate going to your county convention, send this article’s link to your Precinct Chairman and work on getting a resolution taken to the county convention.

    There may be time yet. Our deadline is tomorrow.

    Something this good can make it to the state conventions for State Adoption.

    If you know any other Precinct Committeemen, contact them as well.

    This is what I’ll be doing .. NOW.

    Thanks, Erick.

  • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

    Just like the idea of a Balanced Budget Amendment. Thankfully, neither one will ever see the light of day.

  • aesthete

    I’d like to kill some of the debt to a) forestall the inevitable progressive rollback or ignoring of such a restriction based on GDP, and to b) dramatically show investors that investing in the American government will continue to be a good ROI.

  • TheSophist

    …but not for some of the reasons one might think of.

    I find that the point of the Constitution is to stifle debate: it’s in the Constitution, and that’s all there is to it. While we know that the Courts have tended to warp the meaning of certain provisions of the Constitution, on the whole, the function of the Constitution is to stop political debate forever on the topic.

    Look at what’s happened to the abortion debate as the result of Roe v. Wade: it has atrophied in our society to a point where the only real energy is on which Supreme Court Justice to appoint.

    The topic of the proper size and scope of government is a vital one for the citizens of the democracy to engage in constantly. Frankly, it should happen ever single election cycle, if not every year, every month, every week, and every day. If the American people want a ginormous government, then by all means, they should get a ginormous government with all of its attendant ills.

    Freezing debate on the topic strikes me as a solution that will spawn even more problems: a totally disengaged public that doesn’t talk about the hard choices, tradeoffs, and decisions that we (through our reps) have to make.

    I would much rather we get an Amendment that inflicts the pain and burden of government _equally_ to everyone including the poor. And let that lead the way to a citizenry that grapples with the thorny problem of the size/scope of government honestly.

    -TS

    PS: I do support preventing government workers from exercising political power as much possible, as they distort the debate in serious ways.

  • bcb1

    You can talk of the benefits or the pitfalls of such an amendment all day long, but it’s mental mastu….well, you know the rest.

    It’ll never happen, ever. Amending the constitution is hard, really hard. And there isn’t enough support for a balanced budget amendment in the general population or the congresscritter population for it to ever happen.

    Just let the interest groups start talking about reducing or taking away medicare and social security. You’d have buses full of grey ganders marching in DC.

  • bcb1

    TS, you do realize that gov’t employees (feds, not contractors) are prevented from doing much of anything politically other than donating to a candidate.

    They can’t run for office – any office, even local government offices like surveyor or town council or county clerk.

    So the “political power” exercised by federal employees is…uh…none.

  • Achance

    by running for office. They used to be and still should be prohibited from contributing to any candidate or cause. They and their unions, thanks mostly to Democrats, are a major economic and voting force in politics. For those of us in the West, federal employees are a leftwing, well-off occupying force in our states. They, their unions, and their professional associations contribute to and interfere in our elections and in all aspects of our civic and social life.

  • asleep06

    Obviously, it will be politically difficult. But it will be politically difficult to pass any sort of federal spending limits, and limits must be enacted for the financial viability of the nation.

    We’ve seen the consequences of aiming low for years now, and we know that strategy leads to almost complete failure. Might as well aim high and work from there.

  • http://www.voteforteri2010.com teridavisnewman

    I don’t think the people in DC have any clue what “STOP SPENDING” means. They’ve been writing checks with our money for so long that they have no idea what the words “fiscal responsibility”, “balanced budget” and “cut fraud and waste” mean. There’s nothing the voters can do that will take the place of what Congress will NOT do–which is why they need to be replaced with people who WILL represent them. The herd of PAC-pigs need their trough taken away.

  • ihateliberals

    There is a better chance of getting term limits on Congress than getting this amendment to the constitution. do you really think these thieves would abide by this? If you close their purse strings you take away most of their reason for being to begin with. Good luck with this one. It makes too much sense.

  • sjkohut

    “entitlements” to a society that lives longer than the programs were designed for. We have two options. First to transition social security from a bunkrupt government run pension system to a private system. Chile took their SS system, which was modeled on ours, that was headed to bankruptcy and successfully converted it to a privitized system. It works. Option two is to acknowledge that people are living/working longer and we have to push out retirement age to ~70 and adjust benefits to what can be paid for. Medicare has been a boondoogle that has lead to cost shifting and fiscal disruption of US healthcare ever since it was passed. It too needs to be phased out over time and privatized.

    That said, I have major issues with the concept and constitutionality of “entitlements”. I do not see anywhere in the constitution where the federal government has the power to create a retirement pension system, a mandatory healthcare insurance plan, …. It’s time to hit reset and phase out these relics of the New Deal and the Great Society and return us to the principles of the constitution.

  • mdd1956

    10-15% is more like it.

    Many Federal program should be returned to the states (Dept of Ed eliminated etc.) Medicare / Medicaid returned to the states to slove and police corruption etc.

  • CFPeterson

    I don’t think they are seriously considering its passage, they are just starting a great debate. As Eric writes, “The idea is to force a debate on the size and scope of the federal government now and gain a political will for a national budget of sorts.”

    Sparking debate, and maybe waking more people up, the ones who aren’t already attending tea parties. Bringing debate into the diners and kitchens of more American homes.

  • etlib

    I doubt it.

    Firstly, GDP is a government measurement, not some absolute value. It will be subject to a lot of manipulation by the bureaucracy if we have such an ammendment.

    Secondly, since when is the constitution a barrier to libs in congress or the courts. They’ll ignore it, pay lip service and spin things to make it seem like they’re doing the “right” thing,

  • dwscho

    I believe the Spending Amendment is a great concept however, I think two modifications are necessary. First, the limit should be set at 15% and reduced to 10-12% after the economy gets back on a sound footing. Second, I would delete the ability of Congress to override the limit with 2/3rds majority vote. Also, allowing them to override in the event of war simply gives them an excuse to pick our next military adventure. We all know Congress can’t live within its’ means. Providing them with the ability to override the limit simply means they will do it the very first chance they get. Providing a hard limit will force them to make decisons about what is absolutely necessary and what would be simply nice to have.

  • edintexas

    You mean something like the “Paygo” law which was just passed, and even more promptly ignored after being signed into law? Or do you think that while the Senators will ignore the law, they would certainly abide by Senate rules. And what about the House? Since all finance bills start in the House, are you suggesting the Senate refuse to pass any financial bill the House passes which doesn’t comply with the Senate’s internal rules?

  • TheSophist
  • eldad

    The SLA is a great idea! I think another amendment, limiting the terms of all members of the executive and legislative branches (President – 2, six year terms; Senator – 2, six year terms; Representative – 6, 2 year terms) to preclude a cozy club that could constitute a permanent two-thirds majority. For that matter, it might be worthwhile to limit federal judgeships, including the US Supreme Court to 24 years.

  • lightfootletters

    Sounds good in theory. However, AndrewHyman has a good point. “I looked through this huge pdf file, and found no explanation of why the same goals cannot be attained without a constitutional amendment.”

  • realskinny

    20% is the level when Bush was overspending. Prior to the New Deal, 10% was the maximum level except during the Civil War and WWI. Once Social Security and Medicare are privatized there is no reason it needs to be more than 10% now. Also the 10% limit should be of the previous year’s GDP so there could be no chicanery about “estimates”.

    If anyone doesn’t believe SS and Medicare can’t be privatized, just remember, any private management who spent the worker’s savings and resorted to “Ponzi” financing would have gone to prison long ago.

  • jaydickb

    I did look through it, but apparently not carefully enough.